Focus and Scope

" Inter Collegas " is a medical scientific journal in English with a national and foreign distribution. The program aims to publish the results of original scientific research in the field of experimental and clinical medicine, to acquaint a wide range of scientists and physicians with the latest achievements in medical science and practice. The category of readers are scientists of medical and biological specialties, specialists in practical health care, interns, students of medical schools.

• For readersWe invite our readers to subscribe to the newsletters with the latest news. For this you need to register. Registration will allow you to take the role of the author, as well as to subscribe to the journal mailings containing the latest issue of the magazine. Thus, the publishers of the magazine will receive feedback on the reader's interest. See also the Privacy page.

• For authorsDo you want to publish in Inter Collegas? Please, look through the section About us, where you can get acquainted with the editorial policy and requirements to the manuscrepts. Potential authors need to register in the role of Author, log in to their account and fill the form of sending manuscrept.

• For LibrariansWe hope that library staff will contribute this magazine to their list of electronic journals. This publishing system was created in order to enable academic and scientific libraries to organize their own electronic journals for teachers and researchers. More about these opportunities, see the site of the developers of the Public Knowledge Project.

Section Policies

Gynecology

Editors

Irina Tuchkina

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

Ophtalmology

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

Cardiac Surgery

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

Psychiatrics & Medical Psychology

Editors

Volodimir Korostiy

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

PROBLEM LECTURE

Editors

Tetyana Chaychenko

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

PALLIATIVE CARE

Editors

Olena Riga

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

FOREWORD

Editors

Tetyana Chaychenko

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

Peer Review Process

Double-blind (anonymous) review, in which the author and reviewers do not know each other's names, and the number of reviewers is at least twoThe review procedure includes all articles submitted to the editorial board, with the exception of reviews and information messages.The task of reviewing is to promote the strict selection of author's manuscripts for publication and specific recommendations for their improvement.Manuscripts of the articles are reviewed by independent experts, which are appointed by the editorial board of the journal.The editorial office directs reviews to authors of manuscripts in electronic or written form without indicating the name of the reviewer.Authors have the right to indicate in the cover letter the names of those specialists who, in their opinion, should not send the manuscript for review in connection with a possible conflict of interests (this information is confidential and taken into account by the editorial staff when organizing the review).The reviewer is obliged to evaluate the scientific and methodological level of the article, determine its practical value, theoretical and scientific significance, establish the compliance of the article with the principles of ethics in scientific publications, and provide recommendations for eliminating cases of their violation; Consider the attached article within the timeframe provided by the editorial board for reviewing, and send to the editorial staff (by e-mail) a reasoned refusal to review or a written review of the manuscript, at the end of which, based on an analysis of the material's readiness, a conclusion is made about the possibility of publishing an article; Observe the principle of confidentiality, do not make a copy of the article provided for the review, or use knowledge about the content of the article before it is published; report on all conflicts of interest that may affect his opinion of the manuscript.The reviewer has the right to refuse to review a particular article if it considers it justified; to apply with the requirement to extend the review period taking into account the existing conditions for the most objective assessment of the quality of the materials provided; ask for an open communication with the author and refusal to conduct anonymous review.In the presence of negative reviews on the manuscript of the article or on its revised version, the article is rejected with the obligatory notification of the author about the reasons for such a decision. An article rejected by a reviewer is not reviewed again.

Open Access Policy

This journal provides immediate open access to its content on the principle that making research freely available to the public supports a greater global exchange of knowledge.

Publication Ethics

The editorial board of the scientific publication " Inter Collegas " adheres to the principles of ethics adopted by the international community, in particular those reflected in the recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), and also taking into account the experience of authoritative international journals and publishers.

To prevent unfair practices in publishing activities (plagiarism, misreporting, etc.), in order to ensure the high quality of scientific articles, the recognition by the public of the scientific results obtained by the author, each member of the editorial board, the author, the reviewer must adhere to ethical standards, norms and rules. Compliance with the rules of ethics of scientific publications contributes to ensuring the authors' rights to intellectual property, increasing the quality of the publication and excluding the possibility of improper use of copyrighted materials.

Authors of articles when submitting materials in the journal are responsible for the novelty and reliability of the results of scientific research; guarantee that the results of the research, stated in the manuscript, are original. Borrowed fragments or statements should be made with obligatory indication of the author (authors) and primary sources. Plagiarism in any form, including citations, paraphrasing or appropriation of the rights to the results of other people's studies, is unethical and unacceptable. Authors should not use information obtained in private, without open written permission; do not allow the fabrication and falsification of data. Authors should not submit manuscripts that are sent to other publications or are under consideration, as well as articles published in other publications.

All articles submitted by the authors are checked by the editorial board for the absence of plagiarism. If any forms of plagiarism are revealed, the article is returned to the author without further publication in the journal Experimental and Clinical Medicine.

The main ethical norms that should guide the subjects of the review process are as follows:

- if the reviewer is not sure that his qualifications correspond to the level and direction of the research presented in the article, he immediately must refrain from reviewing;

- the aim of the reviewer is an objective assessment of the quality of the presented article and determining the degree of its correspondence to scientific, literary and ethical standards;

- in the process of reviewing, the selfish interests of individuals should be leveled and the intellectual independence of authors should be respected;

- to ensure the right of each author to intellectual property, the reviewer is prohibited from using any of the arguments and conclusions of the author obtained without permission of the latter;

- if there is a conflict of interest between the results of the research and the personal development of the reviewer, or if there is a professional or personal relationship between the reviewer and the author, which may affect the judgment of the reviewer, the reviewer should return the article, indicating a conflict of interest;

- the priority rule is the confidentiality of the article being reviewed, with the view that the referee is prohibited from disclosing information from the article or discussing the conclusions and recommendations of the author with other colleagues that have not yet been made public (with the exception that the reviewer needs someone's special consultation, for which The permission of the editorial board is required);

- the seriousness of the charge of plagiarism requires the reviewer to adequately and reasonably justify his own observations; therefore, any claim of plagiarism or biased citations should be accompanied by appropriate reference (the conclusions of the reviewer should not be slanderous or defamatory without serious grounds for it);

- in the event that the reviewer has doubts about plagiarism, authorship or falsification of data, he must necessarily apply to the editorial board with a requirement to collectively review the author's article;

- since the reviewer should note any cases of insufficient citation by the authors of the works of other scientists working in the field of the article under review, comments on the insufficient citation of the reviewer's own research are identified as biased;

- maintaining the regular periodicity of the publication requires the reviewer to have a high self-discipline, which is the timely submission of a review of the article and respect for the authors of the article (in the case of manifestation of ill-treatment towards authors or systematic provision of low-quality reviews, or failure to meet the deadlines for submitting reviews, Persons to the process of reviewing ceases);

- when a referee is prohibited from using or disclosing non-published information or the author's argumentation, it is not considered to be contrary to the ethical norms of stopping some of the reviewer's own studies if they appear to be ineffective in his opinion.